South Africa Case Law

Morakaladi and Others v Bakone ba Masha Mokopole Communal Property Association and Others (2854/2020)

Morakaladi and Others v Bakone ba Masha Mokopole Communal Property Association and Others (2854/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 67 (4 October 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2854/2020

Judge

Kganyago

The High Court ordered discovery under Rule 35(12), holding that a party may seek documents referred to in affidavits before hearing, even after filing an answering affidavit.

• Discovery
• Rule 35 12
• Interdict Application
• Supplementary Affidavit
• Costs Order
• Civil-procedure

F.G v P.G (50192/15)

F.G v P.G (50192/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 893 (6 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50192/15

Judge

M Mbongwe

The High Court dismissed an application to divert payment of a judgment debt into attorneys’ trust account for maintenance purposes, finding the fears unfounded and the procedure defective.

• Maintenance Enforcement
• Contempt Of Court
• Interdict Application
• Settlement Agreement
• Judgment Debt
• Maintenance-enforcement

Steynol (Pty)Ltd v Obvious Choice Investments 5 (Pty)Ltd and Another (39597/2015)

Steynol (Pty)Ltd v Obvious Choice Investments 5 (Pty)Ltd and Another (39597/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 803 (7 September 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39597/2015

Judge

Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court found that the first respondent failed to identify a reasonably anticipated issue in the main application to which the requested documents would be relevant. The main application concerns an interdict against unlawful activities, not an eviction or disputes over shareholding. The documents sought by the first respondent are not essential for preparing an answering affidavit to the relief claimed. The court agreed with the applicant that further disputes between the parties are not relevant to the present application. Accordingly, the requirements of rule 35(14) were not satisfied, a…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Before Plea
• Rule 35 14
• Relevance Of Documents
• Interdict Application

Imkwanca Municipality v Bathembu and Others (154/2014)

Imkwanca Municipality v Bathembu and Others (154/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 20 (3 April 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

154/2014

Judge

Plasket

The High Court refused to refer an interdict application to oral evidence, finding the municipality’s founding papers too vague and unsupported to justify it.

• Interdict Application
• Disputes Of Fact
• Referral To Oral Evidence
• Rule 6 5 G
• Admissible Evidence
• Oral-evidence-referral

Middleton v Middleton and Others (6440/2010)

Middleton v Middleton and Others (6440/2010) [2013] ZAKZDHC 63 (1 November 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

6440/2010

Judge

Lopes

The court found Kim Middleton acted as nominee for family-held properties and Bodyology interests, and declared ownership and sale proceeds accordingly, with each party bearing own costs.

• Nominee Ownership
• Division Of Property
• Family Dispute
• Close Corporation Membership
• Trusts And Estate Planning
• Interdict Application